It is the intention of this paper to address certain issues
concerning the relation between science, religion, and the public good.
These relations are often discussed without clear, critical
articulations of what is meant by the terms and without clear, informed
understandings of what others, particularly those outside of a given
discipline, mean by the terms. For example, discussants often assume
their own particular, experiential understandings of religion, without
expressing knowledge of the diversity of religions in the world, or even
the diversity of historical manifestations of their own religions. Many
discussants are unaware of critical scholarship in the study of
religion, including informed and intense argument over definition,
theory, and meaning of religion in human history. Likewise, discussants
often assume narrow understandings of science. Many equate
"science" with the natural sciences, and even more narrowly,
with a stable body of knowledge about the natural world, as opposed to
broad processes of critical inquiry into many different objects,
including natural, social, and aesthetic objects. The 19th century
Continental understanding of science as critical and systematic inquiry
into all possible areas of thought is largely unknown in contemporary
discussions in which the term "science" appears.

This paper will do two things. First, we will define what we mean
by "science" in differentiation from "religion" and
articulate how we believe science and religion should be related. By
science we mean a set of critical principles and rules for evaluating
and testing data and arguments about the meaning of data. Such
principles and rules are appropriate for investigating all areas of
experience, including natural, social, and aesthetic phenomena. In order
to obviate too-narrow understandings of "science" we will use
the phrase "critical thinking" to refer to these principles
and rules. As for religion we will remind readers both of the wide
diversity of religious traditions and the wide diversity of scholarly
interpretation of religion. Whether and to what extent religion and
science are compatible depends centrally on how both religion and
science are defined and understood. Many broad religious traditions
include strands that understand religion and science in ways that make
them necessarily antagonistic to one another, as well as strands that
understand them in ways that make them compatible, complementary, or
even identical. Fruitful discussions about the proper relations between
science and religion require careful definitions and presentation of
this historical and conceptual diversity. We will argue for the view
that all religion should be governed by the principles and rules of
critical thinking. In the second part of the paper we will provide
examples that demonstrate how religious views that contradict critical,
scientific thinking lead to pernicious consequences for those who hold
the views, for particular individuals and groups that are damaged
collaterally, and for the larger public.

What is science? We mean by "science" the various,
broad-based methods of discovery, critical thinking, experimental
testing, systematic critique, and collaborative discussion used in
principle by all of the modern scientific disciplines, including the
social, natural, and text-interpretive sciences. Central to all these
disciplines, but employed in different ways on different objects by
each, are the following:

* basic principles of logic and inferential thinking: principles of
identity, contradiction, and excluded middle, and deductive and
inductive inference; perhaps no rule of thinking is more important than
the following: treat like cases alike;

* admitting ignorance, asking questions, desiring to know;

* A commitment to admit only that evidence which is in principle
available to any and all investigators;

We believe that it is better to use one's reason, and think
critically, than not to use it, and it is better to submit all thinking
to these principles and rules than not. This commitment to evidentiary
critical thinking is grounded in traditions of human inquiry and human
practice which have demonstrated its fruitfulness for both contemplative
and practical satisfaction. Human beings desire to know and desire to do
things in the world. The various methods of inquiry derived from the
components of critical thinking outlined above have proven themselves to
be both useful for achieving basic human needs and desires, as well as
satisfying in themselves. We readily admit that our commitment to these
methods is a matter of faith. There is no non-rational, and therefore
non-circular, independent ground which provides a foundation for our
belief in and commitment to critical thinking. In that sense, our faith
in critical thinking is circular. (1) There is also no access to the
meanings and standards of inquiry, truth, goodness, and beauty than
through traditions of human reflection and dialogue. Truth, goodness,
and beauty, are communal concepts that emerge through dialogue,
discussion, vigorous presentation, critique, defense, and modification.
Critical thinking is a self-productive activity which requires serious
and intense reflexive thinking about thinking, along with the
psychological, social, and political conditions that permit thinking
about thinking to flourish. (2) The traditions from which we draw
include Plato's Socrates discussions of dialectic, Aristotle's
logic, and the many ancient, medieval, and modern participants in this
tradition of logic and dialectic. Our traditions also include Francis
Bacon and others who developed the principles and rules of empirical
inquiry, John Stuart Mill who developed and articulated principles and
rules of hypothetical reasoning and democratic dialogue and freedom of
speech, and important representatives of the hermeneutics of suspicion,
the practitioners of culture critique, including David Walker, Friedrich
Nietzsche, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud, all of whom taught us
especially to look for hidden motives and causes of cultural phenomena.

What is religion? There is much debate among scholars about the
meaning of the word "religion." For example, many contemporary
theorists insist that religion is indefinable, apart from descriptions
of its particular manifestations. (3) There simply is nothing, in
general, which corresponds to the word. For some of these theorists, the
term is a construct that has come to refer to various cultural artifacts
(institutions, rituals, meanings) for which there is no essential
defining characteristic. Going further, many social critical scholars
and theorists insist that "religion" is a category of Western
Colonialism, a means of controlling cultural components of
"Others." More traditional scholars offer definitions which
vary from descriptive to normative. Furthermore, judgments about the
relation between religion and science may or may not depend upon how
religion is defined.

Typically, there are cognitive theories, psychological theories,
sociological theories, and normative or religious/spiritualist theories.
(4) Although they differ on details, classical cognitive theorists (E.
B. Tyler, James Frazer, E. O. Wilson) argue that religion has its origin
and meaning in proto-natural science: early human beings needed
understandings and explanations of the natural world in order to
establish a context for practical decision making and environment
manipulation. (5) For these theorists, religion has its origin and
meaning in pre-scientific cosmologies and anthropologies. In this sense,
religion is not so much contrary to science, as it is an inadequate,
early stage of thinking that eventually led to scientific thinking. Once
modern science developed, religion is dispensable. Contemporary
cognitive science theories (Pascal Boyer, Justin Barret, Scott Atran)
build on cognitive and evolutionary psychology to argue that the human
mind has evolved certain capacities that either directly or indirectly
tend to produce the kinds of beliefs that are often associated with
religion. For example, several scholars argue that religion, defined as
belief in supernatural beings, is directly related to an evolved
capacity to detect agency in nature. (6) These scholars argue that it
tends to be more advantageous to assume that an unknown x is an agent
than it is to assume that the unknown x is not an agent. Belief in gods
and other non-natural beings is an extension of this natural human
tendency. For these theorists, religion can be either dispensable or
indispensable. Religion is dispensable if one is interested primarily in
the truth or falsity of an object's existence and agency. Religion
is, perhaps, adaptively useful, if not indispensable, if believing in
non-evidentiary objects and agency is an evolutionarily evolved
psychological need which must be met for (most) humans to be happy or
psychologically and socially integrated. Psychological theories (Ludwig
Feuerbach, Freud, Jung) argue that religion is rooted in human
psychological needs or structures: whether the need to create imaginary
images that help one feel secure and safe in an otherwise hostile or
indifferent but dangerous world (Freud), or the symbolization of ideals
of human and cosmological integration or self-transcendence (Jung). (7)
For psychological theories of religion, religion may or may not be in
conflict with science and thus may or may not be dispensable. For Freud,
religion was alienating and dispensable; for Jung, it was not. Feuerbach
is more complex since his projection theory allows for the possibility
that religion is a valuable means whereby human self-alienation can be
overcome, even if religion itself is only a means and not an end. (8)
Sociological theories (Marx, Durkheim) argue that religion has its
origin and meaning in the community's need to subordinate
individuals to the common good: religious rituals, symbols, and
institutions function to integrate individuals into the common community
project by providing a common language, values, and operant conditioning
structures. (9) For these theories, religion may or may not be in
conflict with religion depending upon the communities and interests the
religions serve. Normative or spiritualist theories (Rudolf Otto, Mircea
Eliade, Paul Tillich, and most recently John Hick) argue that religion
is a means by which human beings strive for or are grasped by a
non-human, and non-natural reality: these theories attempt to provide
support for the view that religion is valuable and important for humans,
insofar as they put human beings in touch with a non-human, non-natural
reality that provides meaning for human life in addition to
religion's social, psychological, or intellectual utility. (10)
Often, these theories utilize metaphors like "depth" to refer
to or symbolize the import of religion for human psychological and
spiritual health. From the point of view of normative theories of this
type also, religion may or may not be in conflict with science,
depending upon the nature of the religion and the ways in which the
relation to society and modern natural science is constructed. For
example, Paul Tillich emphasized the "demonic" capacity of
religion, a characteristic of religion which occurs when participants
mistake finite objects as infinite.

A fifth type of theory, or quasi-theory, should be mentioned here
insofar as it informs the debate between evolution and creationism: the
confessional theory. We will call this a quasi-theory since it is
specifically formulated

as a denial of a theory. This quasi-theory of religion is best known
from the early work of Karl Barth and other proponents of the
dialectical theology of the early 20th century, but the view echoes
throughout the Protestant Christian tradition. This view argues that
Christianity (i.e., the proponent's particular brand of
Christianity, of course) is not religion, but rather relationship,
encounter, with God. Other religions are religion, and even Christians
can set up religions, but genuine Christianity is not religion. Robert
Scharlemann has explicated the logic of this position: Since the
Christian god is defined as that than which non greater can be thought,
the Christian god is indefinable. (11) As indefinable, the Christian god
does not belong to any category, species, genus that can be encountered
in the world. The Christian god is "ultimate," or
"unconditioned." Relationship with the indefinable
"unconditioned" cannot be defined. "Religion" is a
category of human thought that, just because it is a category, confines
or limits that which it seeks to embrace within the field of conditions
or the conditioned. Religion can be defined, researched, described, etc,
because religion is a natural human phenomenon. Genuine Christianity,
however, is not a natural human phenomenon because genuine Christianity
is relationship with that which is not and cannot be defined and thus
delimited.

Scholars of particular religions are not any closer than theorists
of religion in general to formulating essential definitions of the
particular traditions. Religions, if they exist at all, exist as
traditions of conversation among voices of sects or groups that, often,
share little more than words; the meanings of the words are quite often
so divergent that it is difficult to see how they are part of the same
tradition. There simply is no "Christianity,"
"Buddhism," "Islam," etc. There are people who
understand themselves to be Christians, Buddhists, and Muslims, but
individuals and groups do not necessarily share very similar views and
often share very little in common. For example, compare an 18th century
Christian Universalist, a 4th century Greek Orthodox, a late Medieval
Roman Catholic Thomist, a 19th century American Quaker, and a 20th
century Appalachian snake handling Christian. What do they have in
common except some words (Jesus, God, salvation) and, maybe some rituals
(baptism, communion), which they perform and use in really quite
different ways to express and motivate themselves to really quite
different emotions, actions, and behaviors. Consider another important
example from the history of Christianity. Fourth, fifth, and sixth
century Mediterranean Christianity was torn by conflict between catholic
and Arian versions of Christianity. Arians believed that ascribing
divinity to Jesus violated the principle of the unity and oneness of God
(monotheism). Catholic Christians believed that Jesus could not be
savior without being divine. These different Christians understood
"Jesus" in two really different ways. They both, however,
understood themselves to be Christians. Over time, catholic Christians
won the political battle and their definition of Jesus and Christianity
continues to dominate public expressions of Christianity. However,
viewed politically, the Arians could just as easily have won the contest
for dominance, and nearly did on several occasions, and there is no
reason why Arianism could not make a comeback in the future and reassert
its dominance. (12) This example should sufficiently illustrate the fact
that there is no "essential" Christianity, even on a belief as
central to traditional "orthodoxy" as that of the nature of
Jesus. There are competing versions of Christianity. The Christian
tradition consists of an ongoing intramural conversation and debate
about how best to define itself. The debate includes parties which are
quite closely aligned, and parties which are quite antagonistically
opposed to each other. (13)

Generally, individuals and groups emphasize very different things
in their religious practice. Some emphasize very personal and private
experiences and meanings: for them, religion is about personal
interiority. Others emphasize small, in-group, community experiences:
religion is about living in community with others. Others emphasize
large-scale social-political experiences: religion is about large-scale
social, political, economic, and legal institutions and meaning. These
are in fact three typical ways in which religion can be encountered in
the world, and it is not very clear how they are related to each other.
If religion is a private, personal matter, then its potential conflicts
with science will be hardly noticeable. Small, in-group community
experiences are only slightly more noticeable. Religious people who
understand religion as requiring large-scale social-political
experiences will have more potential conflicts with others and thus more
potential conflicts with science, but not necessarily, since this type
of religion can be either antagonistic to, or fully integrated with,
modern critical thinking and scientific discourse. Given this
theoretical and practical diversity within discussions of religion in
general and particular religions and particular religious experience, it
is simply not fruitful to discuss "the" general relationship
between science and religion. Such conversations ignore the historical
and cultural complexity of lived religious experience.

We do not intend here to articulate and defend a particular theory
of religion or view of religion. We want to remind readers that there is
not a single, agreed upon scholarly or theoretical definition of
religion, nor is there a single, agreed upon religion of practice. We
also want to remind readers that how one conceives of religion and what
the specific contents are of a particular religion will determine
whether that religion is good or bad, for whom, and when. We do support
a broadly modern view on religion, however. Religion, religious belief,
and religious ritual, whatever their type, manifestation, or content,
should be subject to the same critical evaluation to which we would
submit any other human phenomenon. In illustration and support of this
view we cite a relatively clear example from Immanuel Kant: If a
religious text, (say, for example, the Jewish and Christian book of
Genesis), relates a story which seems to say that God commands
God's human follower (father Abraham) to kill his son (Isaac) in
order to demonstrate his (father Abraham's) faith in the God who
commands, the story must be interpreted in such a way that what appears
to be a clearly immoral divine command is not the meaning of the story.
Kant insists: even if the plain (literal) meaning of the story is that
God in fact made this immoral command, the religious believer must
interpret the story in such a way that God does not make this immoral
command. (14) Following Kant, we argue that critical thinking is the
proper interpreter of any particular religious tradition. Plato's
Socrates articulates a similar position in Books II-III of The Republic:
religious discourse must be governed by ethical/critical principles.
(15) Both for Kant and Plato's Socrates in the Republic, religious
discourse must always be judged by the principles and standards of
theoretical, practical, and aesthetic reason. The facts that different
people have different gods, or no gods, and the different gods, or no
gods, support and command different things at different times according
to different followers, leaves human beings in the situation of having
to choose among the gods and choose among the various commands of the
various gods as mediated by the various followers of the various gods.
The only faculty we have for choosing is our rational, critical thinking
faculty, and the best critical method we have is that which we outlined
above. This is not to say that reason or "science" totalizes,
and renders religion obsolete, or calls for the abandonment of all
religion, or is at war with religion. Remember, there is no single
meaning of religion and no single meaning or essence of any particular
religion, at least no one meaning or essence that has yet, or is likely
to, emerge as a human consensus. It is to say that whatever we want to
learn from religion, whatever dialogue we ought to have with religion,
should be guided by the principles and rules of evidence and argument
that constitute broad-based critical thinking.

Let us, before moving on to illustrate our view, address one last
issue. This view of the relation of critical thinking to religion
necessarily means that particular religions are relativised one to
another, and the particular contents of particular religions are
subordinated to the principles and rules of critical thinking. This
general view of religion in which religion is subordinated to the
principles and rules of human critical thinking capacities, is the view
developed through extensive debate throughout the 16th, 17th, and 18th
centuries in Europe and North America. It is the view that generated
liberal and modernist wings of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and thus
the view that provoked reactionary responses known as Fundamentalism.
The theoretical justifications for this view were developed over six
centuries through sustained, intense, and extensive discussion and
debate among serious thinkers with serious concerns about the human
good, both individual and civic. The tradition to which we appeal
includes Baruch Spinoza, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, John Toland, Jean
Jacque Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and many other 19th and 20th century
theorists, critics and scholars. Although this view clearly subordinates
all religious phenomena to the principles and rules of critical
thinking, it by no means denigrates the value of religious phenomena.
The post-critical value of religious phenomena, however, can only be
enjoyed by those who are able and willing to do the work of criticism.

At this point we wish to illustrate our view of the relation
between critical thinking and religion.

II. Pernicious Effects of Anti-Evolution Sentiment and Policies on
Human Societies in General and African American in Particular

Earlier in this conference, Professor Harriet Luckman described how
the peculiar variety of American religious fundamentalism developed on
the American frontier, in isolation from higher learning, as well as
church orthodoxy. In the literature of American lives, some of the most
poignant memoirs are those of the frontier women. These women struggled
with issues of safety, hunger, bad weather, loss of their infant
children, whether they would have a roof over their heads, avoiding
spousal violence, fighting for the freedom of whom to love, amongst
other issues (Myres 1983.) If we could go back in time and ask these
women what would be public good, they might say having enough food to
eat, not having to worrying about wars with the Indians or Klan lynch
mobs, not having to bury their babies who died from disease, living in a
warm comfortable home, being free to decide who to love, and maybe just
not being so damned tired all the time. This may seem to be a simple
idea of the "good," but evolutionary psychologists would argue
that we would find these desires amongst all of the world's people,
in virtually every historical period.

The power of the scientific method is its capacity to provide
resources to meet these basic human needs through the application of its
theories via technology. Indeed, without this method, there
wouldn't be anywhere near this number of people alive today.
Products of modern natural science, such as selective breeding to create
crop varieties (all food is genetically modified, it is just by
different genetic techniques), made possible the current growth of the
human population. Another of the great advances of science that improved
human life was the development of the germ theory of disease, which
eventually led to the discovery of antibiotics. Without a proper theory
of disease, one could not develop effective cures. This point is well
illustrated by the impotence of the 13th century Catholic Church which
was powerless before the spread of the Black Death (bubonic plaque,
Erwinia pestis.) All of the efforts of the church and all its prayers
could not stem the tide of death, and in a few years greater than 1/3 of
Europe's population had died horrible deaths. The nobility and the
church hierarchy survived not by supernatural means but by removing
themselves to country estates away from the plague contagion. Clearly
not all religious persons chose to save themselves via retreat. Some
stayed and died with their parishioners. Others choose religious
fanaticism. The flagellant movement grew in the late 13th century. The
adherents of this cult felt that the plague was a curse from God
resulting from human arrogance. They felt by reenacting the suffering of
Christ that they could stem the tide of the plague. Ironically, the
flagellants themselves might have been spreading the plague from city to
city. This could have happened either by fleas or by human contact.
Christians were not the only religion that attributed the plague to some
curse from God. The Sultan of Cairo was advised by his Imams that the
disease was a punishment for the rampant fornication of his people. As a
result women were prevented from making public appearances lest they
incite men's temptation (Bennett and Hollister 2006.)

The point of the preceding observations is not to pillory religion,
but to illustrate why by its very structure and concerns religious
ideology is not capable of providing accurate information about the
structure and function of the natural universe. The history of religious
thought has not been guided by the principles and rules of evidence and
argument that constitute a significant part of the methodology of
broad-based critical thinking. Indeed, many religious groups and
individuals have explicitly argued against such forms of inquiry. Such
that even in the 20th century, former US Secretary of the Interior James
Watt felt that no action needed to be taken to preserve natural
resources. He reasoned that this was not necessary because Christ would
be returning soon to establish his kingdom on Earth. In 2006,
fundamentalist minister John Hagee claimed that Hurricane Katrina was
God's punishment on the city of New Orleans for its sinful ways
(Mother Jones 2008). Hagee would have been at home in the 14th century.
He made no such pronouncement in 2008 when Hurricane Ivan devastated the
gulf coast of Texas. One can only suppose that this disaster was not a
curse from God because this region had more devout Christians living
there. The 2008 Republican Party Vice Presidential nominee, Sarah Palin
is opposed to birth control, abortion, and the teaching of evolution in
the public schools.

Granted that Watt, Palin, and Hagee are extreme examples of
uncritical thinking. Unfortunately, their views are widely held in the
United States. These views are so popular that a major factor in John
McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate was her appeal to
the "Republican" base. The power of this base to influence
American politics is so strong that many argue George W. Bush Jr. won
the 2000 election behind the fundamentalist resistance to gay rights and
marriage. This issue played a key role in southern Ohio, which was one
of the key states that gave him the required electoral votes to win.
Others point out that his ability to win this election was influenced by
the political agenda of another group of religious extremists (the
Wahabi Muslims) through the wealth of the Saudi royal family (Unger
2004.) What is clear is that in the United States, inordinate political
power is being wielded by self-proclaimed "Biblical
literalist" Christian fundamentalists. They are using this
political power in an attempt to set the nation's social and
cultural agenda. Indeed if the Palin's amongst America's
political leaders were to succeed in this task, entire areas of
scientific research might be put at risk.

Ironically, this isn't the time for impeding the power of
science. The United States and the rest of the industrialized world is
now in the midst of severe financial crisis. The financial crisis for
the US is partially caused by its dependence on imported oil. This
dependence is in turn part of a greater danger; an energy economy that
relies on the burning of fossil fuels. Science has already explained why
this is problematic. At the present rate of global consumption, fossil
fuels may be depleted within a few hundred years. In addition, the
burning of fossil fuels adds to the C[O.sub.2] content of the
Earth's atmosphere. This and other greenhouse gases have been
demonstrated to playing a major role in anthropogenic climate change.
Polar scientists have already shown that the polar ice caps are now open
during summer. Sea levels are rising in the Pacific. Higher average
temperatures are allowing the expansion of the habitat range for disease
vectors. Agriculture areas that were once receiving adequate rainfall
are experiencing shifting patterns of precipitation. To address these
issues the entire arsenal of modern science will be required. The
problem, however is that in the United States, increasing numbers of its
citizens are not prepared to critically think through the mind-boggling
possibilities of the present conjuncture. This results for many
Americans due to the growing influence of religious fundamentalism.
Thus, this version of uncritical religious discourse is already causing
harm. Indeed its spread may lead to irreversible catastrophe in the same
way the flagellants may have hastened the spread of the Bubonic plague
in 14th century Europe.

Critical Thinking About Religion, Biology , and Race

American society is unique. It is one of the few examples of a
nation whose indigenous population was replaced in mass by immigrants
from another continent. This also happened in Canada and Australia.
However, Canada and Australia did not experience the amount of racial
slavery that was integral to the growth of America as a world power.
This process was also different for countries such as the Republic of
South Africa since here a European derived minority held political power
for a time but this minority never became more numerous than the
indigenous population. At the center of the transition of the process by
which America transitioned from a continent numerically dominated by its
indigenous inhabitants to one numerically, socially, and culturally
dominated by European descendents were notions of religion, biology, and
race. Few scholars would dispute the previous claim. However, what is
less acceptable to them, and almost taboo for the general public is the
claim that racial and religious ideology still are playing major roles
in the social subordination of specific non-European derived populations
within the modern nation. In the following sections we shall illustrate
how non-critically examined religious belief and racial ideology are
still causing significant harm to the well-being of African Americans.

The African American saga began in Jamestown in 1619. This was one
year before the Pilgrims arrived in what they would name New England.
They would not have survived the first winter if not for a man named
Sqaunto of the Wampanoag nation. The American holiday of Thanksgiving
commemorates the early friendly relations between these people and the
Pilgrims. These relations deteriorated quickly. The cultures and customs
of these different societies were too incompatible. The English viewed
the Amerindian nations as savages, whose actions served the devil. By
1622 violence against the Indians was becoming more common. By 1630 a
significant Puritan colony was established in Massachusetts. The
Puritans mission in America was explicitly religious. They wanted to
establish a civilization that would be a model for what they saw as a
decadent and immoral England. This mission meant that they wanted land
and wanting land put them in immediate conflict with the local
Amerindians for resources (Gillon 2006.) By 1638, the Puritan colony had
grown to 11,000 persons. They justified the seizure of Amerindian land
as part of their covenant with the Christian God. Conversely, Amerindian
religious thought venerated the land, but to them land, animals, and
plants were all spiritual entities. Thus the action of the English
settlers who were clearing forests, trapping and hunting wildlife at
unprecedented rates, planting agricultural fields, and attempting to
build permanent cities were sacrilegious. There could not have been an
easy resolution to these differences in religious practice, especially
when at least one side felt that the other was demonic and primitive.
This is a glaring example of the problem of uncritically practiced
religion. European Christians could not bring themselves to understand
that their religious revelations were in no way "superior" to
those of the Amerindians. Instead they "proved" the
superiority of their God by the brutal massacre and subjugation of the
people who had originally attempted to live with them peacefully (Mystic
River massacre 1637, the Pequot War 1638, and the resolution to these
events came with the end of King Phillip's War in 1676.)

The treatment of African slaves by the English was just as bad.
However, while the American Indians had the means to maintain warfare
against the European immigrants to America until the 1870's, this
was not really true of the Africans. As slaves, the African descended
persons were at a severe disadvantage from the onset. Initially, African
and European servants were treated similarly. However, by the beginning
of the 18th century all of the slaveholding states had enacted
legislation that differentiated the African slave from the European
indentured servant (Graves 2005a). African resistance to slavery was
uneven and consisted primarily of running away. There were a few notable
slave rebellions but all ended with larger mortality for the slaves
compared to the masters. Initially Africans attempted to maintain their
cultural integrity, but with so many tribes interspersed together and
with the power of the slave master to physically torture those who
resisted indoctrination, the indigenous African cultures amongst the
slaves had all but disappeared by the 3rd generation of slaves
(ironically the original Angolans landed in Jamestown in 1619 had
already been converted to Christianity, Hine, Hine, and Harold 2006.)

These examples illustrate why religion, race, and biology played a
foundational role in the forming of the United States. The nation's
founding leaders were primarily Protestants of Western European descent.
They differed from those they subordinated by their religious beliefs
(Protestantism versus Amerindian Shamanism and hybridized West African
Shamanism and Christianity), as well as their physical appearance
(Northwestern European features versus Amerindian (similar to both E.
Asian and E. European) and Sub-Saharan African. These differences
combined to develop the socially constructed race theories which until
the mid-19th century were predominantly directed by religious as opposed
to scientific ideology (Graves 2005a, pp. 37-51.) What is less
appreciated is how the religious aspects of these socially constructed
race theories still dominate the way the majority of Americans think
about race.

Race and Creationism

The United States of America is also unique amongst modern
industrialized nations regarding its orientation toward scientific
explanations of human origins. The United States finished 33rd of 34
industrialized nations in a survey of public acceptance of evolution
(Miller, Scott, and Okamoto 2005.) There is still a great deal of
resistance to the scientific fact that modern humans are descended from
pre-existing forms of life. In June 2007, the Gallup Poll Organization
queried Americans on their views on the origin and development of life
on Earth. Particularly relevant to this paper are the results from the
question that addressed whether humans were the result of a special act
of creation by a supreme, supernatural being (God): Creationism, that
is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present
form at one time within the last 10,000 years is definitely true,
probably true, probably false, definitely false, no opinion. Of those
surveyed, 39% felt that this was definitely true, and 27% felt that it
was probably true. Conversely only 15% felt that this claim was
definitely false, 39% report belief in God-guided evolution, while only
9% report belief in evolution without God. These numbers have remained
stable since 1982 when Gallup first asked these questions.

Sociological research indicates that certain education, class, and
geographic factors correlate with adherence to creationist views in the
United States. It is also likely that acceptance of this view is
strongly influenced by the ethnicity/socially-constructed race of the
respondent. African Americans, who generally belong to more
fundamentalist/Biblical literalist Christian denominations, would be
expected to show an even higher response in the definitely true
category. For example, 85% of African Americans report themselves as
Christian, with membership in Protestant denominations at 78% (15%
evangelical, 4% mainline, and 59% historically black churches.) Only 5%
of African Americans report as Catholics, 1% as Jehovah Witnesses, 1.5%
as Mormons and other Christians, PEW Forum 2008.) If we assumed that all
the Catholics followed the Papal edict concerning evolution, then based
on these figures, we should expect less than 10% of African Americans to
have no religious objection to evolution (including the 1.5% of African
Americans who describe themselves as atheists and agnostics.) This
percentage would be the lowest for any American ethnic group except for
American Indians (lower than European Americans, Hispanics, and Asian
Americans.)

There are logical consequences for American views about race that
follow from the belief that: "God created human beings pretty much
in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."
This would imply that God created the races of human beings as well.
This is not a new idea. European and American naturalists of the 18th
century all operated under the assumption that human racial variation
was created by the Christian God. They further reasoned that since all
acts of creation had significance, the differences between the races
also had significance. For these naturalists, this generally meant that
the differences of the others were signs of inferiority relative to the
European norm. Europeans stood above all other races on the Platonic
scale of nature relative to God's perfection. Louis Agassiz (1807 -
1873), a contemporary of Charles Darwin, explained that human races
resulted from schemes of creation in which particular animals and plants
were designed to fit specific physical environments (zones of creation,
Gould 1981.) Agassiz was a polygenist. These naturalists thought that
there had been separate creations of human species. This notion follows
the idea that God created pre-Adamite races. The descendents of the
pre-Adamite races thus did not share the covenant that God established
with Abraham. Graves 2005a demonstrates that the polygenist theory of
human origins was the most popular naturalist view of the 19th century
in both the United States and United Kingdom. It also had a considerable
number of religious adherents in the form of the Pre-Adamite races
(Harris, 1867; Causland 1868; Moore 1868; Winchell 1890.) The idea that
the races of man were meant to be separate also had theological traction
in the 20th century. Throughout the Civil Rights movement in the United
States, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (which was African
American) cited Biblical passages that supported the idea that all
Christians were united spiritually in the body of Christ. Thus it
followed from their argument that segregation was not only immoral but
sinful. To this the segregationists replied that the unity of the church
was spiritual not physical. God had created physical differences between
the races and had placed them in different regions of the world. From
this they implied that God meant to keep the races separate and they
relied on Biblical citations such as Deuteronomy 32:8, "When the
Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all
mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of
sons of Israel", and Paul in Acts 17:26, "From one man he made
every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole Earth; and he
determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should
live." They claimed that these passages supported the contention
that God wanted the different types of people to be separate (Dailey
2004.) It is significant that late in the 20th century, segregationist
attitudes toward public schooling were still significantly correlated
with the belief that God had created separate and different abilities
for the races. European Americans who favored segregation of African
Americans in Tennessee believed that God had created African Americans
with inferior mental ability (Pride and May 1999.)

The religious idea that humans may be the descendents of more than
one creation has not completely subsided in American life. At least one
book was written in 2007 that attempted to resuscitate the Pre-Adamite
races (Mayer 2007.) Despite the popularity of polygenism in the 19th
century, the most commonly held view for the origin of human races in
America was monogenist. The monogenist view accepts only one Adam, but
proposes that the difference races of men are descended from Noah. The
development of the races follows from the curse that Noah brought
against his son Ham and his descendents (Genesis 9:21-25.) This story
tells that Noah and his three sons, Shem, Japheth, and Ham along with
their wives were taken aboard the ark. God brings the flood to destroy
all flesh. During the time aboard the ark, Ham ridicules his
father's nakedness, while Shem and Japheth avert their eyes and
cover their father. Noah responds by cursing Ham's son to be
"the servant of servants." When the flood subsides, the people
and animals depart the ark. Modern fundamentalist Christians claim that
Shem gave rise to the nation of Israel, Japheth to the European and
Asian races, and Ham to the African races. Henry Morris, director of the
Creation Research Institute, claimed that the Hamitic races are
inherently limited by consequences of Noah's curse. He claims that
even the early inventions of the Hamitic peoples were taken over by the
Japhethites (Europeans) and that the Hamites were enslaved by the
latter.

There are a number of problems with Morris's argument. First,
all of the world's populations have been enslaved by groups from
other population at various times. Thus it is impossible to single out
the slavery against Africans as the episode of slavery that resulted
from the curse of Ham. Secondly, the idea that Africans were Hamitic is
a modern idea. Braude (1997) demonstrates that there is no consensus on
the identity of the Noahic lineages in medieval Europe. The midrashic
and Talmudic stories of Ham being smitten on his skin are vague and
unclear and do not mention any skin color change. The 13th century
German scholar Eike Von Repgow argued that Ham's sons settled in
Africa to refute the claim that these sons had given rise to slaves and
serfs. He argued that it was Europeans who were slaves and serfs. This
again illustrates the weakness of religious narrartive with regard to
explaining natural phenomena. Various Christian and Jewish traditions in
different time periods interpreted the curse of Ham with respect to the
circumstances of their own time. There is no rule-driven methodology
that can dispute any of the specific claims within the context of
religious discourse. Saying that the Hamites settled in Europe is just
as valid as saying that they settled in Africa.

Given that the majority of Christians in the United States adhere
to some form of fundamentalist Protestantism it is safe to say that the
majority of modern American thoughts about the meaning and significance
of human variation can be located within this world view. The situation
is made worse by the fact that the majority of American college students
have little education regarding human evolution (Graves 2002.) For
example, a 1992 poll that found that significant number of college
students believed that the color a person's skin depended on
whether God favored or punished their ancestors. Researchers at Arizona
State University found that 18.4% of their undergraduates agreed with or
were not sure that dark skin resulted from God's curse (Lawson and
Worsnop 1992.) At that same institution in 2001, 25% of my students
believed that human races began at "the beginning of time"
(Graves 2002.) In 2006, 15% of students polled at North Carolina A&T
State University believed that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. These
figures were similar to a survey of California freshman conducted in
2000 (Graves 2002.) In a 2008 survey at NCATSU asking when modern humans
first appeared 28.7% believed this claim. In that same poll, only 11.6%
answered that modern humans evolved within the last 200,000 ybp.

Testing creationism's claims concerning race

The majority of African Americans belong to Protestant
denominations that are fundamentalist. The National Baptist Convention
for example claims that every bit of the Bible is factually true.
Ironically, unlike the Southern Baptist Convention (which is
predominantly European American and was founded on segregationist
principles), the NBC hasn't invested a great deal of energy in the
Evolution/Creation debate. This may be in part, because the NBC has
always been more concerned with issues of social justice. Despite its
relatively progressive stance compared to the SBC, it is argued here
that the fundamentalism of the NBC is causing harm to the African
American community. Specifically its fundamentalist views make it more
difficult to attract talented African American students into careers in
science (specifically those disciplines in science that may contradict
fundamentalist doctrine, e.g. Archaeology, Anthropology, Human Genetics,
or Evolutionary Biology.)

When we examine the claims of fundamentalist Christianity versus
those of evolutionary biology with regard to human genetic variation and
the concept of race the former fails miserably to explain what we
observe. The fundamentalist narrative has logic implications. It
predicts that modern humans are ~10,000 years old and that the original
humans had physical characteristics similar to modern day Middle
Easterners. In this vein, Biblical fundamentalism is no different from
any of the other religious narratives of creation. For example, American
Indian creation narratives claim that their great spirit created their
people on their ancestral tribal land. Modern American Indian
traditionalists vehemently reject the notion that they are derived from
or share ancestry with any other human populations (especially
Africans.) For example, some American Indians of the Northwest claimed
that they should have sovereignty over the remains of the Kennewick man
fossil under the assumption that because the bones were found in
territory that their tribe once inhabited, that the remains had to be
one of their tribal ancestors (Tall Bear 2003.). For the American
Indians tribes, the anatomical or genetic evidence concerning Kennewick
man was irrelevant. They argued that neither of these could be used to
determine the cultural identity of the individual in question. They
claimed this despite the fact that the Kennewick fossil had anatomical
features there were significantly different from modern Amerindians
(Swedlund and Anderson 1999; Chatters 2000.). Eight prominent
anthropologists disputed the claim of the American Indians by arguing
that there was no evidence supporting the claim that these remains had
cultural continuity with those of modern American Indians. This is a
clear example where the methodologies of religious and scientific
thinking were in conflict. For the American Indians involved, there
rejection of the Bering Strait theory is primarily due to its conflict
with their traditional religious beliefs and oral histories. In
addition, they are suspicious of how the scientific claims may be used
to weaken their land rights under treaty with the United States
government (and certainly given the US government history of breaking
treaties this is a legitimate concern. Tall Bear 2003.)

In this instance, the Amerindian religious objections are no
different from those of Biblical fundamentalists. Both groups reject the
scientific evidence primarily on the grounds that it contradicts their
religious story of human origins. This is a common feature of religious
creation narratives, all are constructed to explain the origin of the
people who believe in the religion or diety. Thus, Kenyan creation
narratives speak of how the Gods created them in their home land, as do
Japanese narratives speak of how the Gods created humans in Japan. The
scientific evidence only supports those creation narratives that claim
that humans first originated in East Africa.

It may seem that due to the religious/supernatural character of
these narratives that they cannot be subjected to scientific test.
However, most of the fundamentalists do not dispute that DNA is the
genetic code of life. What they dispute is that DNA as the genetic code
can evolve to found new species. Many creationists will accept
microevolutionary changes within species as legitimate. The concession
that microevolutionary changes occur within species results from the
fact that these changes have been observed in historical time. There are
also many genetic mechanisms that have been observed and by themselves
are not required to have resulted from an evolutionary mechanism. For
example, crossing over is consistently observed during meiosis
(gametogenesis.) This results because portions of the DNA that have high
sequence similarity line up with each other during meiosis and often
exchange pieces. Evolutionary biologists argue that crossing over is an
important source of new variation for natural selection to operate on,
however the fact that crossing over exists is not a requirement for
evolution and crossing over could exist without resulting from an
evolutionary process.

One of the things that results from crossing over is that genetic
linkage groups (genes that are inherited together due to close proximity
on a chromosome) are disrupted over time. This has been observed in
laboratory populations and in domesticated mammals (Clegg et al. 1980;
Betancourt and Presgraves 1980; Amaral et al. 2008). It has also been
observed that newer populations have larger linkage groups, and that due
to crossing over, the average size of these groups gets smaller through
time. Thus we can "age" populations by the average size of
their linkage groups. This provides us with a way to estimate the age of
human populations that is not necessarily linked to a macroevolutionary
process. Studies that examine the size of linkage groups have been
accomplished in modern humans. They all concur that sub-Saharan Africans
have the smallest linkage groups on average, followed by Middle Eastern
populations, Europeans = East Asians = Pacific Islanders, followed by
American Indians. This result vitiates the fundamentalist Biblical claim
that Middle Eastern populations were created first or that modern
Africans are descended from Middle Easterners. The evidence shows that
it was the other way around (if one is a monogenist.) This result
doesn't invalidate the Amerindian creation narratives because they
don't assume that there was only one God. Thus, the African and
European Gods could have created these populations at different times.
Table 1 states a number of Christian fundamentalist claims concerning
human origins. It also states claims that follow logically from
polygenist as well as evolutionary theoy.. Table 2 reports what modern
genetics and fossil evidence reveals concerning human diversity. Table 2
suggests that all of the monogenist claims concerning human diversity
are falsified, in the case of polygeny 2/5 predictions are supported,
and finally for evolutionary theory 4/4 are supported with 1 claim not
relevant since evolutionary theory makes no specific prediction for the
phenomenon. From these results we would have to logically conclude that
there is no physical evidence that supports monogenist creationist
claims concerning the origin of humans. Thus if one wishes to adhere to
special creationism while insisting that there be physical evidence for
it, you would have to become a polygenist. Of course, the body of
physical evidence also suggests that polygenism is false and supports
that modern human evolved with their place origin located in Sub-Saharan
Africa.

What are the consequences of getting human diversity wrong?

Graves 2005a points out that Charles Darwin was actually one of
first naturalists to dispute the claim of the polygenists that there
were separate species of humans. Darwin's thinking also
contradicted the core claim of the monogenists. For both groups of
creationists, human variation had significance because it resulted from
an act of divide creation. For the European mind of the 18 - 20th
century, that significance was always that the non-European was created
inferior and thus was divinely ordained to fulfill a subservient role in
Christian society. Japanese creation myths present them as
"pure-blood people" not descended from or related to others.
Inherent in this notion is that they are superior to others (Graves
2005b). Darwin on the other hand stated the variations we observed in
modern humans could not be of much significance because if they were
natural selection would have eliminated the variations generations ago.
He also realized that his contention that all humans shared common
ancestry and also shared common ancestry with other mammals would be one
of his most despised conclusions (both by religious practitioners and
professional naturalists, Graves 2005a.) Darwin also reasoned that the
origin of modern humans had to be in Sub-Saharan Africa because the
closest relatives to modern humans (the apes) resided there. This claim
has been now validated both by fossil and genetic evidence (Boyd and
Silk 2003.)

There are real material consequences to getting the fact and the
mechanism of human genetic relatedness wrong. The primary difficulty
with anti-evolutionary explanations of human genetic diversity is that
they fail to make any useful predictions about human biology. For
example, the ubiquitous phenomenon of human aging when unexplained until
the work of theoretical and experimental work of evolutionary biologists
beginning in the 1940's (Rose 2005.) We wouldn't be able to
understand disease without the power of evolutionary theory (Neese and
Williams 1996; Ewald 2000.) Nor would we be able to comprehend most of
human behavior, including sexual behavior without evolution (Sober and
Sloan-Wilson 1998; Miller 2000; Roughgarden 2004; Oakley 2008.) One of
the most pernicious modern fallacies can be located in the attempt to
resuscitate "racial medicine" (Graves and Rose 2006.) Another
example of this in biomedical research arises from the historical
failure to properly sample human genetic diversity. In the absence of
accurate data, conclusions are being drawn that reify notions of 19th
century racial classification (Graves 2005c.) There have also been
historical fallacies that have resulted in great harm, such as the
social-Darwinism (Spencerism) and eugenics.

Creationist errors concerning human genetic diversity are even more
destructive. Behind all of these is the hidden and sometimes explicit
idea that God favors only a particular group of people (e.g. God's
chosen people.) Modern ethnic cleansing is not justified primarily by
science, as opposed to religious justifications that exploit ethnic
differences. For example, Nazi race theory was not really located in
science, but was motivated by the religion of Aryanism (Poole and Poole
1976; Graves 2005a.) The Nazi call for the extermination of European
Jewry was also rooted in a deeper Christian anti-Semitism which can be
located back into the Middle Ages (Gossett 1963.) In the United States
creationist/Biblical literalists have been historically associated with
racist terror organizations (such as the Ku Klux Klan.) William Jennings
Bryan (who argued the State of Tennessee case in Scopes) was sympathetic
to the Klan. He endorsed Klansmen in elections and spoke against an
amendment denouncing the Klan at the 1924 Democratic Party convention.
Bryan also received political support from the Klan. In 1925 the Ku Klux
Klan that was the first organization to urge that creationism and
evolution be given equal time in public schools. When Bryan died five
days after the Scopes Trial, the Klan burned 3 crosses in his honor (de
Camp 1968; Feldman 1999; Alexander 1965; Ashby 1987; Chalmers 1965, Rice
1962.) Throughout the history of the Biblical literalist movement over
40,000 fundamentalist preachers have joined the Klan (McIver 1994.)
Notables amongst well known fundamentalists with overtly white
supremacist ideology were William Bell Riley (World Christian
Fundamentals Association), Billy Sunday, Bob Jones Sr., and J. Frank
Norris (Moore 2002.) Latter in the 20th century as most Christian
denominations denounced the Klan, the Southern Baptists were silent on
this issue. The SBC had originally been formed in 1845 as the
pro-slavery Baptist church (Rosenberg 1989.) Throughout its history the
SBC was opposed to integration and anti-racism, denouncing Darwinism as
"a soul-destroying, Bible destroying, and God dishonoring
theory." The legacy of Bob Jones, Sr. was evident at Bob Jones
University throughout the 20th century (located in Greenville, South
Carolina.) This institution did not strike down its policy against
interracial dating until 2000. The policy was based on the idea that
interracial dating was "playing into the hands of the Antichrist by
defying God's will regarding God-made differences among the
races" (Hebel and Schmidt 2000.) This review of the close
association between Biblical literalists, creationists, and white
supremacy explains why African Americans haven't actively
participated in the anti-evolution movement. Even if they share similar
ideology on the infallibility of the Biblical narrative, they are
diametrically opposed to this movement's social base.

Failed Social Policies Differentially Impact African Americans

One of the most important tests of any worldview is do they explain
reality and if so what prescriptions they suggest for human activity.
Prior to the germ theory of disease, it was a common belief amongst
European Christians that many illnesses were caused by demonic
possession. If the former theory is true than disease can be cured by
medicine and if the latter disease is true than you need to consult a
priest for an exorcism. In the present day, few religious people
subscribe to the demonic possession theory of disease. Yet and still,
religious explanations of important social issues still exist and in the
United States these have traction with regard to strongly influencing
public policy. For example, the majority of Christian fundamentalists
see homosexuality as a deviant behavior that is a sin against God. They
claim that they love the sinners, but despise their sin. Due to the
influence of this group on American politics, legal protections against
anti-gay discrimination are weak. The problem with this thinking is that
increasing evidence demonstrates the homosexuality is biologically based
(resulting from genetic, environmental, developmental, and chance
factors, Hamer 1995; Roughgarden 2004; Cianni,Cemelli, and Zanzotto
2008.) This realism has caused at least some Christians to re-evaluate
their views on homosexuality. If this behavior is genetic and therefore
is not the result of a choice to disobey God's law, then it cannot
be considered sinful. It should be remembered here that the creationist
believes that everything that occurs within humans is the result of
God's design. This example graphically illustrates how two
different world views describe reality and in turn what those views
would prescribe for human social action.

There are several examples of how fundamentalist/creationist belief
harms African Americans who adhere to its tenets. Certainly, in the
above case, the religion fundamentalism of African Americans had led
them to disproportionately shun homosexual members of the African
American community (Stokes and Peterson 1998; Fullilove and Fullilove
1999; Battle and Bennett 2000.) The harm that has resulted has included
higher rates of suicide amongst these homosexuals as well as them
engaging in more risky sexual behavior thus infecting non-homosexuals as
well.

In addition, efforts to stem the tide of HIV infection as well as
teen pregnancy rates suffer from fundamentalist ideology. For example,
two of the most pressing problems in the African American community
today are the HIV epidemic, the increasing percentage of teen
pregnancies and the disproportionate rate of underweight babies. The age
of mother is an important variable influencing low birth weight (as is
poverty.) Evangelical and literalists in African American community
argued for and have succeeded in implementing abstinence only programs
to deal with teen pregnancy. For example, 78% of African Americans
belong to fundamentalist congregations, and this percentage may have
been even higher in the past. The abstinence theme is undoubtedly heard
by millions of African American teens, far more than heard by European
American teens whose churches aren't as literalist. Yet the data
clearly show that HIV and teen pregnancy rates are much higher in
African Americans. The African American rate is twice the European
American rate. The National Center for Health Statistic reported that
the birth rate rose by 3 percent between 2005 and 2006 among 15- to
19-year-old females, after plummeting 34 percent between 1991 and 2005.
There is also a nine times higher percentage of Chlamydia and HIV
infection in African Americans despite the fact that this group is far
more likely to hear abstinence preached in their church. These increases
occurred despite the fact that in this period, abstinence-only
sex-education programs, received about $176 million a year in federal
funding. Despite their gross failure to stem the tide of teen age
pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases, the proponents of abstinence
education continue to defend the programs, and instead blamed the
increases on the rise on the ineffectiveness of conventional sexual
education programs that focus on condom use and other contraceptives, as
well as the pervasive depiction of sexuality in the culture (Stein
2007.)

Evolutionary biologists would approach this problem entirely
differently. Under the evolutionary paradigm the core behavioral
activity of all species is reproduction and humans are not excluded from
this. For this reason, abstinence programs are fool's errands.
Human adolescents face a rush of hormones that are preparing them to
engage in reproductive behavior. Abstinence only programs assume that by
"will" alone these young people will be able to control the
urges to engage in sexual activity. Evolutionary theory would suggest
that a significant number of adolescents will engage in sexual activity
and for that reason it is best to give them sex, safe-sex,
contraceptive, and relationship counseling.

Reason suggests that students who are hostile to the methodologies
of science should shun science careers. Brazelton et al. 1999 has
demonstrated a negative relationship between student religiousity and
likelihood to choose science as a career. This general issue is
discussed in Harrold and Eve 1995. Graves and Leigh 1994 discussed this
specificially for African American students. Mazur 2005 repeats the
finding of religious fundamentalism and resistance to evolution.

These studies are suggestive however. In that none of them have
really examined enough students to establish a differential impact of
African American religiousity, particularly fundamentalism on the choice
of specific science careers. For example, North Carolina A&T State
University produces substantial numbers of African American students
with degrees in Engineering, but virtually none who pursue degrees in
biology with an emphasis in evolution. Clearly there is a need for
additional studies with substantial sample sizes and conducted in a
variety of academic settings to evaluate the influence of creationist
ideology with regard to science careers.

Conclusion: Critical Thinking in Religion and Science for the
Public Good

This paper has defined "science" in differentiation from
"religion." Science is the set of critical principles and
rules for evaluating and testing data and arguments about the meaning of
data.

We conclude that these principles and rules are appropriate for
investigating all areas of experience, including natural, social, and
aesthetic phenomena. In our view "science" is best pursued via
"critical thinking. " It was also our purpose to illustrate
the wide diversity of religious traditions and the wide diversity of
scholarly interpretations of religion. We contend that the extent
religion and science are compatible depends centrally on how both
religion and science are defined and understood. To make this point, we
examined the impact of Christian fundamentalism upon a particular
population, African Americans. We demonstrated that in this context,
religion and science act in ways that make them necessarily antagonistic
to one another. Alternatively we suggest that it is entirely possible to
develop dialogs between science and religion that make them compatible,
complementary, or even identical. For this to occur science and religion
require careful definitions and accurate presentations of their
historical and conceptual diversity. We believe that this can only occur
for those religious practitioners who are willing to view religion as
also governed by the principles and rules of critical thinking. Finally,
the case of decidedly negative impact of special creationist ideology
upon African Americans suggests that American society has much to gain
by bringing such a reasoned dialog into the common practice of the
majority of its citizens.

Boyer, Pascal, Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of
Religious Thought, New York: Basic Books, 2001. Braude, B., The sons of
Noah and the construction of ethnic and geographical identities in the
medieval and early modern periods, The William and Mary Quarterly, Third
Series, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 103-142, 1997.

Brace, C.L., "Race" Is a Four-Letter Word: The Genesis of
the Concept, (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), 2005.

Graves, J.L., What we know and what we don't know: Human
Genetic Variation and the social construction of race, for Is Race
Real?, a collection of essays solicited by The Social Science Research
Council, edited by Craig Calhoun, President Social Science Research
Council, April 6th 2005c.

UNESCO, Race and Science: The Race Question in Modern Science (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1961) and "No scientific basis for
race bias found by world panel of experts," The New York Times,
July 17, 1950. The list of notable geneticists who reviewed the 1950
UNESCO statement before its publication included E.G. Conklin, Th.
Dobzhansky, L.C. Dunn, Julian S. Huxley, and Hermann J. Muller.

Unger, C., House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship
Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties, (New York, NY:
Scribner), 2004.

Winchell, A., Preadamites or A Demonstration of the Men Before
Adam; Together with A Study of Their Condition, Antiquity, Racial
Affinites; and Progressive Dispersion Over the Earth, (Chicago: S.C.
Griggs and Co.), 1890.

(1) We will not introduce and discuss in this essay efforts by some
religious and theological writers to use Postmodern literary theory and
philosophical approaches to revivify the persuasive force of particular
truth claims for particular religious traditions. Such attempts can be
more or less sophisticated. In general, we view such attempts as
violations of the principle of treating like cases alike.

(2) See discussions of the nature of thinking and tradition in G.
W. F. Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit;; Logic; Philosophy of Spirit; F.
D. E. Schleiermacher, Dialektik. See also Alasdair MacIntyre, Whose
Justice? Which Rationality? and After Virtue; Hans Georg Gadamer, Truth
and Method; Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature;
Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity; Richard J. Bernstein, Beyond
Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis; various
works by Paul Ricoeur; Jeffrey Stout, Democracy and Tradition; and Seyla
Benhabib, Situating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmodernism in
Contemporary Ethics.

(7) See Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion and Totem and
Taboo; Carl Jung, Archetypes of the Collective Unconsciousness, second
edition, translated by William McGuire (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1969); Psychology and Religion (The Terry Lectures), (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1960); and "Religionless Christianity,"
translated by Mrs. Stephen Benko, Journal of the American Academy of
Religion Vol. 39, No. 1 (March 1971): 43-47.

(10) See Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of
Religion (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1987); John Hick, An
Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent, second
edition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005); Paul Tillich, The
Courage to Be (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000) and Dynamics of
Faith (New York: HarperOne, 2001); Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1958).

(13) A classical exposition of the difficulty of discovering an
essential interpretation of Christianity is Albert Schweitzer's The
Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of its Progress from
Reimarus to Wrede (Dover Publications, 2005), first published in 1906.
An English translation of the text is published online at
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/schweitzer/.

(14) Immanuel Kant, Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone,
translated by Theodore M. Greene and Hoyt H. Hudson (New York: Harper
Torchbooks, 1960): 100-105, 173-178. Kant writes, "an exposition of
the revelation which has come into our possession is required, that is,
a thorough-going interpretation of it in a sense agreeing with the
universal practical rules of a religion of pure reason" (p. 100).
Kant's clearest experession of this view is: " For the
theoretical part of ecclesiastical faith cannot interest us morally if
it does not conduce to the performance of all human duties as divine
commands (that which constitutes the essence of all religion).
Frequently this interpretation may, in the light of the text (of the
revelation), appear forced--it may often really be forced; and yet if
the text can possibly support it, it must be preferred to a literal
interpretation which either contains nothing at all [helpful] to
morality or else actually works coutner to moral incentives" (Kant,
100-101). The classical alternative to Kant's view is Soren
Kierkegaard's "teleological suspension of the ethical,"
by which Kierkegaard's pseudonym, Johannes de Silentio, explicates
the "logic" of a view in which non-ethical religious concerns
supersede rational ethical considerations. Our view rejects the view
explicated by Kierkegaard's pseudonymous author and insists on the
need to control all religious views by rational, critical ethical
considerations. See Soren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling/Repetition,
translated by Edna H. Hong and Howard V. Hong, (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1983).

(15) Plato, The Republic, translated by Allan Bloom, (New York:
Basic Books, 1968): 55-63ff. Socrates argues, "we must supervise
the makers of tales; and if they make a fine tale, it must be approved,
but if not, it must be rejected" (377b and c). "When a man in
speech makes a bad representation of what gods and heroes are like, ...
they mustn't be spoken in our city" (377e - 378b). Similar
views are expressed by Pato's Socrates in Plato's Euthyphro
and by Plato's Athenian stranger in The Laws, see especially
810ff..

Gary Bailey, Religious Studies, Division of University Studies,
North Carolina A&T State University

Table 1: Monogeny Polygeny Evolutionary
Predictions of
Biblical
Literalist
Creationist and
Evolutionary
Scenarios on
Human
DiversityClaim
Origin of Middle East Pre-Adamite East Africa
humans: (ME). races could
Location have originated
anywhere, but
Adamite races
in the Middle
East.
Origin of Within the last Pre-Adamite Within the last
humans: 10,000 years. races could 200,000--
timeline have originated 150,000 ybp.
at anytime, but
Adamite races
within the last
10,000 years.
Genetic More should Pre-Adamite Greatest
Diversity exist in the races should genetic
ME. have more diversity
genetic should be in
diversity than Africa, less as
the Adamite you move away
races. from Africa,
small
populations
should have the
least.
Skin and Lighter skin Darker skins Darker skin
eye color. should have appear first, appears first
appeared first, lighter skins since humans
darker skin of Adamites evolved in the
after Noah. All should appear tropics.
eye colors later. Lighter skins
should have evolve after
appeared at the humans migrate
same time. to northern
climates (-
70,000--55,000
ybp.) Brown
before blue
eyes.
Deleterious Descendents of Pre-Adamites No explicit
genes Ham should have should have prediction.
more more defective
deleterious genes.
genes (Henry
Morris).
Table 2: Monogeny Polygeny Evolutionary
Results of
Genetic Studies
on Human
DiversityClaim
Origin of No, East No, all humans Yes, East
humans: Africa. ancestry traces Africa.
Location to Africa.
Origin of No, genomic and No all humans Yes, Africa
humans: individual have genes that 200,00--
timeline. genes results fit the 200,000 150,000 ybp.,
suggest 200,00 to 150,000 ybp ME, Europe,
to 150,000 ybp. results. Asia--100,000--
35,000 ybp,
Americas ~
35,000 ybp.
Genetic No, more in Yes, Sub- Yes, greatest
diversity Sub-Saharan Saharan genetic
Africa. Africans > ME. diversity in
Africa, less in
Europe and
Asia.
Skin and eye No, darker Yes, darker Yes, darker
color color genes color skins skin more
more ancient. more ancient. ancient, light
pigmentation
recent, e.g.
blue eye allele
is only ~ 6,000
ybp.
Deleterious No, Europeans No, Europeans No explicit
genes have more have more prediction,
deleterious deleterious although this
than Africans genes. is predicted by
**. genetic drift
an evolutionary
mechanism.
* Fossils of anatomically modern humans are first found in sub-
Saharan Africa in this time frame, they are not found outside of this
region until around 100,000 ybp.
** Lohmueller et al. 2008; Barreiro et al. 2008.

COPYRIGHT 2008 Forum on Public Policy
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.